National Security and Intelligence

Washington Post intelligence reporter Dana Priest was online Thursday, Nov. 30, at 12:30 p.m. ET to discuss the latest developments in national security and intelligence.

The Wronged Man, ( Post, Nov. 29)

Dana Priest covers intelligence and wrote " The Mission: Waging War and Keeping Peace With America's Military" (W.W. Norton). The book chronicles the increasing frequency with which the military is called upon to solve political and economic problems.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Dana Priest: Hello everyone. I'm in, so let's begin!

_______________________

Portland, Maine: Hi Dana,

The Post today had an article on needed congressional reform of the Intelligence committees, a suggestion from the 9/11 report.

Given that the Armed Services and Appropriations committees would have to surrender some of their control of the money to Intelligence oversight committees, do you think this will happen?

Dana Priest: No I do not, for exactly the reasons you state. But it should if, and only if, one wants some actual reform on intelligence oversight. Otherwise, it's just the minor things that will get changed.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: You were asked about the civil war terminology this weekend on TV and gave a thoughtful answer about how your editors see the issue. Peter Baker was asked a similar question this week on a chat and responded with a quote from one of your editors. Do I perceive a difference of opinion between the reporters and editors at The Post on this issue?

Dana Priest: I really cannot speak for all reporters and/or editors here and I don't know what Peter Baker wrote but I would say that it would not be surprising to have many versions/interpretations here in the newsroom of whether Iraq is in a civil war or not. That's because, at this point, it's a semantic judgment call. No one disputes that the level of violence isn't equal to civil wars of the past. Then you get into a discussion of whether it's civil chaos, civil war or civil strife. Frankly, the label is a side issue. Because the elected government in Iraq has not labeled it a civil war (nor has Moqtada Sadr, it's main competitor, by the way), I think The Post is not going to step forward. Why should it? Our main focus has been, and will always be, to describe as completely as possible what our reporters are learning in Iraq, at the Pentagon, etc. about the reality on the ground. Others, in general, are left to do the labeling.

_______________________

West Chester, Pa.: Seems like the same cast of characters who led us to war in Iraq are now pushing hard for bombing Iran's nuclear sites. Much of the intelligence they use seems about as honest and reliable as their Iraq WMD claims. Will they do it?

Dana Priest: At the moment, I think they are too busy with Iraq.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Can you give us some insight on some of the candidates that Speaker-to-be Pelosi is considering for chair of the House Intelligence Committee. Who might be best for the country? And is Rockefeller the presumed head of the Senate Intelligence Committee? Will he be a steady and strong influence?

Dana Priest: Rockefeller is the presumed head on the Senate side, yes. He's gotten steadier and stronger as his tenure on the committee has increased. It takes a while to get up to speed on these matters, and then to feel confident to challenge the intel community if need be. On the house side, none have been hugely strong or important figures on the committee. I still think there's a chance she will name someone not currently on the committee.

_______________________

State College, Pa.: Everyone is pointing to the release next week of the Iraq Study Group's final recommendations and report.

Do you know if this report will be available to the general public, and if so, where copies of it will be available? Or will the findings be classified (or will significant portions be redacted)?

Dana Priest: I believe the report will be unclassified and public.

_______________________

Fort Myers, Fla.: I really enjoyed your November 28 column on the legal proceedings involving Khaled al-Masri.

You've been there in court. How do you suppose the lawyers for the government are able to deliver their arguments with a straight face?

Dana Priest: Easy. They believe deeply in what they are saying. I don't find that hard to understand at all. These are all very serious and complex matters.

_______________________

Philadelphia, Pa.: Hi, Dana:

I'm starting to feel as if nothing will change in the new Congress -- they won't be willing to end the abuses against prisoners, won't end warrantless wiretapping, won't force the President to withdraw troops from Iraq.

Do you have a sense that anything related to national security is going to change come January?

Dana Priest: I do not foresee great changes in the area of national security, no. They will probably make it much harder for Bush to launch any kind of military action against Iran or any other country.

_______________________

New Yawk, N.Y.: Dana, this is a little bit of a throwback to some of your observations in "The Mission," but given the course of events in Iraq, do you think there is any possibility of the U.S. government creating an organization specifically designed for post-conflict stability operations, i.e., nation-building? A semi-military force, designed for peacekeeping, police action, and nurturing political institutions, perhaps run by the State Department.

Dana Priest: Unfortunately not. I just don't think there's any down-time within the administration to do that right now. But if I had a magic wand and had to narrow the focus of your question so as to obtain a result here is what I would do (I'm only stepping out here because I did so in my book): Vastly beef up the US's ability to train police forces, Not, Not, Not, military forces. The DOJ still has a tiny program to do that. It's pittance compared to what the Pentagon has.

_______________________

Toronto, Canada: Thanks for taking our questions. Admiral Harry Harris, the current commandant of the Guantanamo detainment camp, acknowledged a complete 180 degree reversal of the Guantanamo interrogation policy.

Several years ago the FBI withdrew from all involvement in all the Guantanamo interrogations because their experience was that "rapport building" interrogations provided more reliable intelligence than the Rumsfeld/Miller policy of brutality. The FBI had argued that the policy of brutality would produce worthless, unreliable intelligence, and would prevent the interrogations being used in legitimate courts of law.

I found it surprising to read that Harris was now advocating "rapport building" as if he had never mocked that approach, and had not been a steely advocate of the brutal approach himself.

I'm confused. What does his reversal mean? Is it simply him sucking up to the new Sec Def?

Dana Priest: It probably reflects the fact that they really don't know what they are doing down there.

_______________________

Munich, Germany: That was an interesting article that you wrote on Khaled al-Masri. I was reminded of the quote by Otto von Bismarck, who equated the inner workings of the state (and the secret service) as "the making of sausage", meaning that most of us normal people don't need to know how things are done. We only need to experience the results.

Since most people on the planet know that an injustice was perpetrated against Masri, I'm hoping that cool heads will prevail and that he'll be suitably compensated. I'm not quite sure how an official apology would affect that, however.

On another front, what do you think of the Alexander Litvinenko story? Since all paths (in this case, radiation on airplanes) lead to Moscow, does this mean that the FSB is back in business, Cold War style?

Dana Priest: On the first point only: There are ways to remedy this that would not require messing around in the classified muck. Actually, it's so simple I'm not sure why it hasn't been done already: The CIA (or other part of executive branch) or Congress can simply say, we are so sorry. This was a mistake. Mistakes happen. Here's some money to get a bigger apartment or whatever. And, by the way, none of this means that the details you, Mr. Masri, are making public are true. The only truth we admit is that you were mistakenly detained and imprisoned by the CIA. If anyone can tell me why that would be so hard, I'm all ears!

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: Our system of justice makes absolutely no sense, two weeks jail time bags a national apology and 2 million dollars. Kidnapped, deported, and tortured gets your case dismissed if your Canadian, and eventually if your German. Barely so much as an acknowledgement that it even happened. Its amazing the difference access, citizenship, and being white makes.

Dana Priest: Good points.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Hi, Dana, on another subject, what are you hearing about the killing of the Russian agent in England (sorry, can't spell his name)? Also, what is the latest on the former PM? What do our intel folks think this portends (e.g., over-hyped story, return to cold war tactics)

Thanks (and Happy Thanksgiving)

Dana Priest: All I know now is the obvious: this is not the end of the story. It has a long, long way to go.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: I am having trouble reading throughout the simplistic and sensational headlines. Was the crux of the Baker Hamilton report "pull out of Iraq," or a "phased withdrawal with no timetable?" Since it is a phased withdrawal how is that different than what the President has said?

Dana Priest: That's because the solution is vague itself (as portrayed in the papers today). It's neither pull out nor phased withdrawal. It's pull back....that's either back out of the country, or back into garrisons around the country to come out only in dire emergencies. And meanwhile, training continues. It's supposed to be a stick--a threat--to Maliki while not giving the insurgents the time table they would want to wait the US out and then pounce.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Baker/Hamilton seems to be a wet firecracker. A suggestion to talk with Iran/Syria that Bush will probably ignore, and troop withdrawal talk that's so vague it's not even a recommendation. Am I wrong?

Dana Priest: You might be right. But I certainly don't think they want it to be viewed that way.

_______________________

Rolla, Mo.: Another 'civil war' quote question -- were you saying that the fact that the al Maliki government did not call it a civil war factors into The Post's characterization of the war? Exactly when would a government trying to survive declare itself to be in a civil war? There is no upside to it for them, so they never would. Therefore, why would the Post not use the term "civil war" based on its own journalistic assessment?

Dana Priest: Lebanese leaders said they were in a civil war. Bosnian leaders said they were in a civil war. It's not unusual.

_______________________

Maryland:"Our main focus has been, and will always be, to describe as completely as possible what our reporters are learning in Iraq, at the Pentagon, etc. about the reality on the ground. Others, in general, are left to do the labeling."

But isn't part of The Post's job to do an analysis and go beyond what the administration (here or in Iraq) says? I mean, under your description, Woodward and Bernstein wouldn't have broke the story on Watergate, because it wasn't The Post's job to label something.

After the events of this week, I fail to see how the Post can NOT call it a civil war. Sunnis are attacking Shias, and vice versa. Sounds like a civil war to me.

Dana Priest: Woodward and Bernstein did exactly what I was saying. They unearthed the facts and put them in the paper.

_______________________

Katy, Tex.: Ms. Priest, help me understand the national security interests of Saudi Arabia. Ostensibly it is a Sunni ally of the US, but in Iraq itself mainly Sunnis are targeting and killing U.S. troops. And Saudi Arabia must be concerned, if Iraq unravels further, that an Iranian backed, possibly radical, Shia regime takes predominate power (especially in the south, close I believe to the Saudis' own oil fields). Looking down the road, does it back the Iraqi Sunnis now? If it faces off with Iran, if only by proxy, won't it need U.S. support for armaments? Do we know where its considerable monetary power and influence is flowing right now?

Dana Priest: It backs the Sunnis now and forever and, my guess would be, it is doing that now in ways we haven't yet learned and been able to report.

_______________________

Pittsburgh, Pa.: I am the wife of an Army officer who has just been recalled to active duty-- thankfully he will be serving in the U.S. I expect to be glued to C-Span when the new Congress convenes. What hearings do you expect to be especially revealing on Iraq, intelligence, war profiteering? Who do you think will be the most competent chairmen?

Dana Priest: Armed Services and Judiciary. I do think the Democrats will take on war profiteering.

_______________________

Minneapolis, Minn.: It seems pretty clear from the flood of interesting leaks to The Post and the Times this week that there is some major jockeying going on within the administration over Iraq. The folks at the top of the Pentagon in particular seem to be pushing a line that is not the prevailing one at the White House at the moment. It's clear the leak of the Hadley memo came from the Cabinet - otherwise the White House and the GOP would be screaming bloody murder. But that doesn't necessarily mean it was authorized. Is it possible someone on the losing side of a bureaucratic battle over Iraq policy - say, Rumsfeld unbound by the need to keep his job or one of his allies - leaked the memo to undercut Maliki and the Bush-Maliki talks?

Dana Priest: When it comes to unauthorized disclosures, one thing I've learned in 20 years of reporting is that anything is possible.

_______________________

Toronto, Canada: Thanks for taking our questions, and thanks for taking such a leadership role in breaking the news on the covert sites.

I've been doing my best to understand the U.S. counter-terrorism intelligence effort. The German version of MSN published an article on February 24th, 2006, reporting that their U.S. sources claimed that El-Masri "may have been a leader of a radical Lebanese group 'El-Tawhid' during the early 1980s".

I had never heard of "El-Tawhid". So I did a Google search. I found "El-Tawhid" translated simply as "monotheism", and was part of the names of several groups. Terrorist Zarqawi's group's original name included the phrase "El-Tawhid" and translated as "movement for monotheism and struggle". Meanwhile the non-radical Levantine ethnic group the Druze's Arabic name for themselves also included the phrase "El Tawhid" and translated simply as "People of monotheism".

I guessed that it was more likely that El-Masri had belonged to a Druze militia during the Lebanese Civil War, and that a lazy, incompetent, or malicious U.S. intelligence analyst had conflated Zarqawi's group with the Druze militia. When you interviewed El-Masri you did you happen to ask him about whether he was a Druze?

Dana Priest: I did not ask him that. But these reports about his alleged ties have been non-stop since he came out. The interesting thing about them is this: no one has claimed that it was because of these alleged links that he was picked up. It was a case of mistaken identity. So the reports seem calculated to make the mistake seem, well, more justified than it was.

_______________________

Re: Your al-Masri solution:"The only truth we admit is that you were mistakenly detained and imprisoned by the CIA. If anyone can tell me why that would be so hard, I'm all ears!"

You ask why this hasn't been proposed?

If the government officially admits, in a court proceeding (not a GWB press conference), that they operate black-ops prisons on foreign soil, the government officials responsible will find themselves in the dock at the Hague.

Dana Priest: But the president has already said this! And they won't have to say where. So that's not the problem. Got another reason?

_______________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: Regarding your story "The Wronged Man," do you feel there is any chance the Appeals Court will reverse the lower court decision in the Khaled al-Masri case? Did the Appeal Judges say anything Tuesday that indicated how they were leaning?

Dana Priest: I would give it a 70-30 chance against reversal. The national security argument is a daunting one for mere judicial appointees to get themselves around. They did ask questions about "the next best thing" and probed the possibility of a totally ex-parte (in their chambers without defense counsel or Masri) trial that they would basically run.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: The Wronged Man, ( Post, Nov. 29)

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Stepping Into Iraq, ( Post, Nov. 29)

_______________________

Sewickley, Pa.: The opinion piece in yesterday's paper by Nawaf Obaid was very interesting. If you had to guess, why did the Saudis summon Vice President Cheney on the eve of the meeting in Jordan? What did you think of author's assessment of the Saudis' ability to cut oil prices in half in order to hurt Iran? And finally, would we ever see Saudi youth suited up and in the fight to help their Sunni Iraqi brethren?

Dana Priest: I'll defer to the reporters who wrote the stories on the "why." but to answer you're last question: no. More likely, just lots of Saudi money flowing in that direction.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Wow, Dana. Your answer to Katy, Tex, implies that we may have two strategies in Iraq. Are we in come covert way supporting the Sunnis? Is this a paranoid thought?

Dana Priest: No, I'm suggesting the Saudis, or Saudi individuals may be supporting the Sunnis.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Why not just leave Iraq and let it develop into whatever it will develop into? Civil War seems inevitable, and any government that is created will be tenuous at best. Why doesn't the "coalition" just admit our failure - just pick up and let it develop "organically" anyway?

Dana Priest: The theory is that what develops "organically" could be much worse to US interests. Think fundamentalist government that gives Al Qaeda a safehaven to plan attacks against the United States and Europe, that's all.

_______________________

Reading, Pa.: Dana :

Doesn't Robert Gates experience with Iran signal the administration"s interest in advancing their agenda towards Iran? Is any one taking this "bring Syria and Iran into the diplomatic loop" talk seriously?

Dana Priest: I think the Iranians and Syrians are taking it seriously (the Iranians more so than the Syrians). The regional actors look like they are moving towards something--possibly an accommodation of interests--without the US.

_______________________

Long Beach, Calif.: Re: Unearthing facts by Woodward/Bernstein

Didn't a security guard at the Watergate break the story? Didn't Mark Felt hand it to them on a platter? I don't think a lot of "unearthing" took place. It's more of a case of being handed a roadmap with connected dots, IMO. Am I wrong on that?

Dana Priest: I think you are very wrong. Unfortunately, though, it seems many people think we just sit here and get things handed to us on platters, or in envelopes or whatever. Couldn't be further from the truth.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: In response to the post by Katy, Tex.:

It is important to realize that Saudi Arabia is finding itself between a rock and a hard place when it comes to supporting the Sunnis in Iraq.

Domestic politics in Saudi Arabia are screaming for supporting the Sunnis in Iraq in an effort to show solidarity, and also to help counter what their public sees as a growing influence of Shiite Islam.

However, the monarchy probably also sees the potential danger in aligning itself with the Sunnis in Iraq. The recent Marine Corps assessment of Sunni-dominated Anbar Province asserts that this province is heavily controlled by al-Qaeda, which has the House of Saud close to the top of their list of regimes to topple. Too much support could give al-Qaeda the access it needs to topple that regime and create an even more wide-spread, chaotic situation.

This battle between whether or not to support Iraqi Sunnis may be a reason why VP Cheney went to Saudi Arabia over Thanksgiving - the best possible option for the Saudi Government would be for the US to fix the situation in Iraq, rather than have to choose either the rock or the hard place.

Dana Priest: Thank you. This is a much more sophisticated answer than the short one I gave.

_______________________

Takoma Park, Md.: Dana,

I hope you finally get online today!

What is your take on what effect Gates as SecDef will have on cooperation within the intel community? Will the Rumsfeld power grab stick? Or won't it make any difference at all?

Dana Priest: I'm glad I made it too. Thank you. Yes, Gates will smooth over relations with the Intel Community and, if he has the time (and he may not), I believe he will try to roll back the Rumsfeld power grab, as you called it.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: The President will not deal with Iran or Syria, but Iraq is sovereign and can do what it wants, why is this so difficult to comprehend by so many people?

Dana Priest: Would that be sovereign on paper or sovereign in reality?

_______________________

Hayward, Calif.: Some of the militias participating in the bloody conflict in Iraq are probably supported by external governments, such as Iran and Syria. In the Cold War, the U.S. also supported paramilitaries in foreign civil wars, including the Contras, the Afghan mujahadeen and UNITA. Does the U.S. currently give support to any of the non-governmental Iraqi militias involved in the present war?

Dana Priest: That is a great question. I don't really know the answer.

_______________________

Topanga, Calif.: Are you a newspaper or do you just publish press releases from the White House? I cannot believe that NBC is ahead of The Washington Post on the civil war issue.

Dana Priest: Are you a newspaper reader or do you just watch the talk shows?

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: A question about Moqtada al-Sadr. We know he has been at least somewhat directing the Mahdi army. We know he will not deal/talk with the U.S. We know he stood down the Americans previously and came out with increased prestige. We know he is at least somewhat directing the Shia battle against the Sunnis. For all these reasons and more, he is an enemy to America's mission in Iraq, correct?

So, why not kill him? Bomb him? Is it because he is so powerful a force among the people or so unifying a force among the Shia pols? I understand that...but I also understand that with him around, the U.S. will be unable to accomplish our stated mission of victory (on which, thanks to Bush team rhetoric, many Americans remain unclear.)

Thoughts?

Dana Priest: Correct on both accounts. If I recall correctly, they backed off of killing or capturing before because they thought they might be able to work with him.

_______________________

Mililani, Hawaii: Does the death of a Russian spy in London from plutonium 210 possibly mean that nuclear material is more readily available than previously thought, especially to terrorist groups, and could it be a possible precursor of a dirty bomb attack in London or elsewhere?

Dana Priest: I don't think so. Rather, it seems to point to quasi-government involvement of some kind.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Dana this is a basic Leak 101 question. When the WH leaks a memo - are key sentences highlighted? I heard a variety of network and non-network reporters quoting the exact same sentence from the memo: "But the reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action."....Is this just a coincidence? Or does a leak come with the best bits underlined?

Dana Priest: Leak 101 answer: There's no MO for a leaked document. Since the New York Times published a very extensive version of the memo (and said it didn't actually have the paper but had written down what Michael Gordon saw or had read to him--and hats off to him by the way!), my guess is that this is the most critical section and that's why it was highlighted everywhere. Or else, that some wire service highlighted it in the interest of brevity, and the 24-hour, always-pressed-for-time cable nets just picked up the wire account.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Text of U.S. Security Adviser's Iraq Memo, ( New York Times, Nov. 29)

_______________________

Dana Priest: Well, with that said, I'm off to open all those leaked memos and documents sitting in my mailbox! Seriously, thanks for joining me!

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.